Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] Trigger on vclock change

[Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>]

* Georgy Kirichenko <georgy@tarantool.org> [19/11/15 22:59]:
> Please, point me out first how your claims related to my approach. Because you 
> made no effort to understand the approach. Even did not ask for very brief 
> explanation.

Alright, you claim I am not asking for a brief explanation. I am
asking for an RFC, which is the best way to explain ideas we have.

But fine, I am asking you:
> > 
> > If you have a miracle design, and you happen to not want to send
> > an RFC, you still can prove it by sending a patch.
> The next wrong suggestion. I have a concrete design which was shared and 
> discussed.
>  > Last time it didn't work: your refused to send an RFC for in-memory WAL - 
> and the patch can't pass the code review for over 3 months.
> Please read my previous message and find out why this patchset is on hold.
> To be concrete, the patch is not passed the review because of:
> 1. Bad gc design which I want to fix first, and I already answered why your 
> approach to fix it is not even working. Yes, you could not / did not want to 
> object.

What is wrong with GC and how exactly do you want to "fix" it?

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia